The Relationship between Secondary School Student and Teacher in the Vietnamese Educational Setting

Contents

Summary

1 Introduction
1.1 Purposes of the study
1.2 Hypotheses

2 Literature review
2.1 Student-Teacher relationships
2.2 Closeness
2.3 Conflict
2.4 Dependency

3 Methods
3.1 Sample
3.2 Instrumentation
3.3 Procedure
3.4 Statistical analysis

4 Results
4.1 Exploratory Factor Analyses
4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
4.3 Correlation relationships
4.4 Moderating relationship
4.5 Discussion
4.6 Conclusion

List of Figures

4.1 The Screeplot of exploratory factor analysis on STRS items

4.2 This child and I always seem to be struggling with each other. (Cf)

4.3 This child easily becomes angry with me. (Cf)

4.4 This child feels that I treat him/her unfairly. (Cf)

4.5 This child sees me as a source of punishment and criticism. (Cf)

4.6 This child appears hurt or embarrassed when I correct him/her. (D)

4.7 This child reacts strongly to separation from me. (D)

4.8 This child is overly dependent on me. (D)

4.9 This child asks for my help when he/she really does not need help. (D)

4.10 This child remains angry or is resistant after being disciplined. (Cf)

4.11 When this child is misbehaving, he/she responds well to my look or tone of voice. (Cf)

4.12 This child expresses hurt or jealousy when I spend time with other children. (D)

4.13 Dealing with this child drains my energy. (Cf)

4.14 When this child is in a bad mood, I know we’re in for a long and difficult day. (Cf)

4.15 This child’s feelings toward me can be unpredictable or can change suddenly. (Cf)

4.16 Despite my best efforts, I’m uncomfortable with how this child and I get along. (Cf)

4.17 This child whines or cries when he/she wants something from me. (Cf)

4.18 This child is sneaky or manipulative with me. (Cf)

4.19 This child is uncomfortable with physical affection or touch from me. (C)

4.20 I share an affectionate, warm relationship with this child. (C)

4.21 If upset, this child will seek comfort from me. (C)

4.22 This child values his/her relationship with me. (C)

4.23 When I praise this child, he/she beams with pride. (C)

4.24 This child spontaneously shares information about himself/herself. (C)

4.25 This child tries to please me. (C)

4.26 It is easy to be in tune with what this child is feeling. (C)

4.27 I’ve noticed this child copying my behavior or ways of doing things. (C)

4.28 This child openly shares his/her feelings and experiences with me. (C)

4.29 My interactions with this child make me feel effective and confident. (C)

4.30 The distribution of conflict perception

4.31 The distribution of closeness perception

4.32 The distribution of dependency perception

4.33 The structure of confirmatory factor analysis on STRS items

4.34 Moderation model

4.35 Moderating relationship

List of Tables

4.1 Factor loading for Exploratory Factor Analysis

4.2 Goodness-of-Fit Estimates for Confirmatory Factor Analysis

4.3 Means, standard deviations and correlations

Summary

Purpose - The purpose of this book is to report a Factorial Validity Research of the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) in the Vietnamese educational setting.

Design/methodology/approach - To examine the dimensional structure of the adapted STRS, Exploratory factor analyses and Confirmatory factor analysis were used with items in samples (N = 202 teachers and 1.110 students).

Findings - Results provided evidence for the dimensional structure of the adapted STRS subscales and its construct validity. The 28-item Vietnamese version confirms the 3-factors structure suggested by Pianta (2001) and underlines the three dimensions of conflict, close- ness and dependency.

Practical implications - This study has created guidance for improvement of the rela- tionship between students and teachers in educational setting.

Originality/value - This research contributes to the widening of the international lit- erature concerning the teacher-student relationship under different perspectives: cross- cultural, statistical, and applicative.

Keywords: Student-Teacher relationship, adaptation, factor analyses, subscales, cross- cultural validity

Chapter 1 Introduction

Teaching is an interpersonal process that seems to influence classroom experience and personal development. Many researches suggest that the quality of teacher-student rela- tionships is a determining factor in students’ competence in social-emotional, behavioral functioning, and cognitive skills [4, 17, 21, 1, 6]. The impact of teacher-student relation- ships has been well documented from a wide array of researches in the last years [14, 9]. The recognition of the contribution of teacher-student relationships to students’ development, school adjustment and academic success increases the demand for accurate measurement of the quality of these relationships 29. Up to now, only a few researches have focused on the cross-cultural validity of the STRS.

1.1 Purposes of the study

In this book, we address the limitation in the literature. The primary purpose of this research was to test the dimensional structure of Closeness, Conflict and Dependency of the adapted STRS in a cultural context - different from that where it has been developed.

1.2 Hypotheses

The following hypotheses (Hs) are proposed in relation to the consequences of the main factors:

H1: The survey will show adequate factorial validity as a measure of the relationship between secondary school students and teachers

H2: The mean levels of Closeness, Conflict, and Dependency are significantly different H3: The latent factors of the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale are correlated

H4: There is a positive relationship between Dependency and Closeness H5: The effect of Dependency on Closeness is moderated by Conflict.

1. Introduction

Chapter 2 Literature review

2.1 Student-Teacher relationships

The student-teacher relationship (STR) is an important component of a student’s success in school. STRs have the potential to serve as an asset for students’ well-being throughout their school career. Current literature suggests that there are three major components of STRs associated with student’s behavioral outcomes: closeness, dependency and conflict. Research has indicated that STRs characterized by closeness are linked to dependency and positive behavior outcomes for students while STRs characterized by conflict are associated with negative behavior outcomes for students.

Previous studies have indicated that positive, supportive, close relationships are bene- ficial for students and result in better behavioral and social outcomes [26, 23].

There are some instruments that assess the quality of teacher-student relationships in education available in the literature, for example the Student-Teacher Relationship Ob- servation Measurement 12, the Teacher-Child Rating Scale 16, the Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support 18, the Classroom Assessment Scoring System 25 and the Child Appraisal of Relationship with Teacher Scale 30.

The most widely used instrument to evaluate teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with individual students is the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale 23, which is the mea- sure applied in the current research. STRS is a 28-item questionnaire that combines theory on child-adult attachment and child development. Based on attachment theory, the STRS measures teachers’ perceptions of their relationships with individual students and their perceptions about students’ behaviour and feelings towards them 24. It contains three subscales, which assess three relational dimensions, closeness, conflict and dependency.

The STRS has been applied in various countries and different cultural backgrounds for example in Germany, Greece, Turkey and the United States of America (USA). However, the literature reveals some inconsistent results regarding the item solution and the factor structure of the scale. For example, there are some researches that confirm the 28-item solution and the three-factor structure [11, 23]. On the other hand, several researches in the USA and other countries did not find evidence concerning the original item solution and factor structure of the STRS, especially when applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) [19, 9, 10]. Taken together, the results from all these researches on the STRS imply that the factorial validity of the STRS may vary, and emphasize the need for further exploration of the validity of STRS in different cultural contexts with non-USA samples. Some of the researches that discuss the reasons for this variation attribute it especially to cultural differences in the construct of dependency [19, 27, 20]. For example, Solheim et al. record that ”the meaning and interpretation of a dependent relationship may be subject to cultural differences”. This result was attributed to differences in the cultural backgrounds (individualism vs. collectivism) and the way relationships are perceived and interpreted.

The conceptual shift of dependency can be explained in terms of the contrasting contin- uum between individualism and collectivism [28, 2]. Independent cultures (individualism) could be stressing the conflictual nature in dependent relations and therefore focus on strategies to cope with overdependency, making this process conflictual, in contrast inter- dependent cultures (collectivism) might give emphasis on the helpless aspect of dependency and invest on proximity to improve the relation 19. People from collectivistic cultural backgrounds do not necessarily interpret dependency as a negative characteristic of the quality of teacher-student relationship or as a disturbing aspect of a student’s behaviour. The reported previous researches reveal that there is a need to further consider the factorial validity of the STRS and especially the dependency subscale in different cultural contexts 29.

2.2 Closeness

The Closeness subscale measures the degree to which a teacher experiences affection, warmth, and open communication with a particular student. A teacher endorsing higher Closeness scores senses that the student is well, the student views the teacher as support- ive, and the student effectively uses the teacher as a resource. Closeness subscale raw scores range from 11 to 55 23. High Closeness scores indicate that the relationship is characterized by warmth, and the teacher believes he or she is effective because the stu- dent uses the teacher as a source of support. Closeness is a warm aective relationship with a teacher, capable of promoting positive attitudes toward school, open communication, involvement, and engagement. Students that display Closeness tend to use the teacher as a resource for facing and overcoming their problems; they are also more inclined to share their own emotions and experiences, especially in moments of strife/discomfort 24. Finally, greater Closeness may encourage children’s learning and school performance and is associated with more positive feelings about school, fewer behavioral problems, more behavioral competencies, and social skills 24.

2.3 Conflict

The Conflict subscale measures the degree to which a teacher perceives his or her rela- tionship with a particular student as negative and conflictual. A teacher endorsing high Conflict scores tends to struggle with the student, perceives the student as angry or un- predictable, and consequently feels emotionally drained and believes himself or herself to be ineffective with that student. Conflict subscale raw scores range from 12 to 60 23. High Conflict scores indicate that the teacher struggles with the student, perceives the student as angry or unpredictable, and consequently the teacher feels emotionally drained and believes he/she is ineffective.

The Conflict dimension measures the negative aspects in the relationship, such as dis- cordant interactions and the absence of a satisfying teacher student relationship. These aspects act as important stress factors for students in a school setting; student-teacher conflicts constitute a situation of tension and favor negative behaviors. Especially during secondary school, conflictual relations with the teacher are at the base of many behavioral problems. They jeopardize social abilities and interactions; impede good school performance 8; obstruct the development of positive attitudes toward schoolwork and increase the risk of regular absences from school.

2.4 Dependency

The Dependency subscale measures the degree to which a teacher perceives a particular student as overly dependent. A teacher endorsing higher Dependency indicates problems with the child’s overreliance on him or her. In addition, higher Dependency scores indicate that the student tends to react strongly to separation from this teacher and often requests help when not needed. Dependency subscale raw scores range from 5 to 25 23. Finally, the Dependency dimension measures possessive, “clingy” behavior and subjectiveness of the student in relation with the teacher. A student that depends on a teacher in an excessive manner tends to inhibit his or her behaviors and, consequently, hesitates in exploring the class/school environment. The student’s sticky behavior poses an obstacle to normal social interaction with peers, favoring feelings of solitude and a negative attitude toward school in general 3. Dependency has not received as much attention as the other two dimensions, in the research on student-teacher relationships.

Chapter 3 Methods

3.1 Sample

After removing cases with a significant amount of missing data, the sample for this research involved 1.110 Vietnamese secondary school students from urban and suburban areas of three provinces in Vietnam (Hanoi, Sonla and Thanhhoa). With regard to students’ gender, 49% of females and 51% were males. In each classroom, only one teacher rated the students. More specifically, 202 secondary school teachers provided STRS forms for the secondary school students.

3.2 Instrumentation

The adapted STRS suggested again a 28-item version that assesses three dimensions, Close- ness (11 items), Conflict (12 items) and Dependency (5 items) (see Table 2). The items are rated by a five-point Likert scale from 1 (definitely does not apply) to 5 (definitely applies). Pianta (2001) reported satisfactory internal consistency for the three subscales. Cronbach’s alpha was .86, .92, .64 for closeness, conflict and dependency respectively 23.

3.3 Procedure

The scale was translated into Vietnamese following the criteria established by Gudmunds- son (2009) concerning the translation and adaptation of assessment instruments to foreign languages and cultures 13. Two bilingual persons were initially involved in the process of translation from English to Vietnamese. Subsequently, the original instrument and the Vietnamese translation were compared by a second pair with the task of identifying any inconsistencies between the original language and Vietnamese.

The research’s design was reviewed and approved by the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) that provides the permissions to implement researches in school settings. The authors informed the teachers about the research’s purpose and procedures and asked for their consent. The parents were also informed with a letter and they were asked to sign a consent form if their child would be randomly selected to be rated by the teacher.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.4 Statistical analysis

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze the data. Data from the sample were analyzed by applying exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify possible misbehaving items in the Vietnamese sample. The EFA results allowed us to assess which factors should be retained from the Vietnamese version of the STRS. After that, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using Amos to test the attachment of the retained items’ factor structure to Pianta’s (2001) original factor structure.

Chapter 4 Results

4.1 Exploratory Factor Analyses

Exploratory factor analysis was used to assess the multidimensional structure of the con- struct measured by STRS. The EFA was conducted using Principal Component method in SPSS. In the first step, all 28 indicators were retained for the analysis. Using a scree plot examination the number of factors to be retained was determined 22.

A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on the 28 items with orthogonal rotation (varimax). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .88, which is well above the acceptable limit of .50. Bartlett’s test of sphericity X 2(378) = 14707.56, p <.001, indicated that correlations between items were sufficiently large for PCA. An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. Three components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 45.16% of the variance (see Figure 4.1).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 4.1: The Screeplot of exploratory factor analysis on STRS items

Table 4.1: Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis With Varimax Rotation

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Note. Factor 1 is Conflict (Cf). Factor 2 is Closeness (C). Factor 3 is Dependency (D). Factor loadings <.40 are suppressed. Items’ numbering is the same as Pianta (2001).

The best solution was represented by the 3-factor structure. The factor loadings are reported in Table 4.1. From Table 4.1 it is evident that the three extracted factors represent the three proposed types of relationships between teachers and students. Anyway, it should be noted that many items had a cross-loading on another factor. The factor loadings <.40 are suppressed. Again, the three extracted factors were labeled: (1) conflict, (2) closeness, and (3) dependency; thus confirming H1.

The models frequently consist of observed variables (the participants’ responses to particular items on an instrument) identified as measured variables, or items of a measure. Information such as the means and standard deviations of the items are presented.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

In the following histogram of item 2 (see Figure 4.2), the peak of the data occurs at level 2 (N = 1.311; M = 2.60; SD = 1.05). The data spread is from about level 1 to level 5. The data in the following graph are right-skewed. Most of the sample values are clustered on the right side of the histogram. They are poor fit.

Figure 4.2: This child and I always seem to be struggling with each other. (Cf)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

In the following histogram of item 11 (see Figure 4.3), the peak of the data occurs at level 2 (N = 1.311; M = 2.29; SD = .99). The data spread is from about level 1 to level 5. The data in the following graph are right-skewed. Most of the sample values are clustered on the right side of the histogram. They are poor fit.

Figure 4.3: This child easily becomes angry with me. (Cf)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

In the following histogram of item 13 (see Figure 4.4), the peak of the data occurs at level 2 (N = 1.311; M = 2.39; SD = 1.11). The data spread is from about level 1 to level 5. The data in the following graph are right-skewed. Most of the sample values are clustered on the right side of the histogram. They are poor fit.

Figure 4.4: This child feels that I treat him/her unfairly. (Cf)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

In the following histogram of item 16 (see Figure 4.5), the peak of the data occurs at level 1 (N = 1.311; M = 1.95; SD = 1.28). The data spread is from about level 1 to level 5. The data in the following graph are right-skewed. Most of the sample values are clustered on the right side of the histogram. They are poor fit.

Figure 4.5: This child sees me as a source of punishment and criticism. (Cf)

In the following histogram of item 6 (see Figure 4.6), the peak of the data occurs at about level 3 (N = 1.311; M = 2.90; SD =.88). The data spread is from about level 1 to level 5. The data in the following graph are quite normal distribution. They are quite good fit.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 4.6: This child appears hurt or embarrassed when I correct him/her. (D)

In the following histogram of item 8 (see Figure 4.7), the peak of the data occurs at about level 3 (N = 1.311; M = 2.71; SD =.86). The data spread is from about level 1 to level 5. The data in the following graph are quite normal distribution. They are quite good fit.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 4.7: This child reacts strongly to separation from me. (D)

In the following histogram of item 10 (see Figure 4.8), the peak of the data occurs at about level 3 (N = 1.311; M = 2.66; SD =.92). The data spread is from about level 1 to level 5. The data in the following graph are quite normal distribution. They are quite good fit.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 4.8: This child is overly dependent on me. (D)

In the following histogram of item 14 (see Figure 4.9), the peak of the data occurs at about level 3 (N = 1.311; M = 2.89; SD =.97). The data spread is from about level 1 to level 5. The data in the following graph are quite normal distribution. They are quite good fit.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 4.9: This child asks for my help when he/she really does not need help. (D)

In the following histogram of item 18 (see Figure 4.10), the peak of the data occurs at level 1 (N = 1.311; M = 1.50; SD = 1.04). The data spread is from about level 1 to level 5. The data in the following graph are right-skewed. Most of the sample values are clustered on the right side of the histogram. They are poor fit.

Figure 4.10: This child remains angry or is resistant after being disciplined. (Cf)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

In the following histogram of item 19 (see Figure 4.11), the peak of the data occurs at level 1 (N = 1.311; M = 1.42; SD = .92). The data spread is from about level 1 to level 5. The data in the following graph are right-skewed. Most of the sample values are clustered on the right side of the histogram. They are poor fit.

Figure 4.11: When this child is misbehaving, he/she responds well to my look or tone of voice. (Cf)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

In the following histogram of item 17 (see Figure 4.12), the peak of the data occurs at level 1 (N = 1.311; M = 2.07; SD = .98). The data spread is from about level 1 to level 5. The data in the following graph are right-skewed. Most of the sample values are clustered on the right side of the histogram. They are poor fit.

Figure 4.12: This child expresses hurt or jealousy when I spend time with other children. (D)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

In the following histogram of item 20 (see Figure 4.13), the peak of the data occurs at level 1 (N = 1.311; M = 1.66; SD = 1.16). The data spread is from about level 1 to level 5. The data in the following graph are right-skewed. Most of the sample values are clustered on the right side of the histogram. They are poor fit.

Figure 4.13: Dealing with this child drains my energy. (Cf)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

In the following histogram of item 22 (see Figure 4.14), the peak of the data occurs at level 1 (N = 1.311; M = 1.68; SD = .98). The data spread is from about level 1 to level 5. The data in the following graph are right-skewed. Most of the sample values are clustered on the right side of the histogram. They are poor fit.

Figure 4.14: When this child is in a bad mood, I know we’re in for a long and difficult day. (Cf)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

[...]